North & South discussion

Hello All!

As a lurker, I have loved reading the well-thought out answers to the discussions here. And so now, I hope it is ok to post a few questions that I have about Fanny from the book, the answers to which I'd be interested to read from the folks here :)

[I have been discussing the book (and the series) over on the N&S IMDb page these many months. And the ladies there have been amazing! There is even a very thorough bookclub thread which is now reposted in the Master Bookclub for anyone interested. You can check it out here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417349/b... ]

So, let me get started then.


1. What do you think of John and Fanny's relationship? Did you find it wanting?

2. How old do you think Fanny was at the start of the novel? What do you think is the age gap between John and Fanny? Therefore, how old do you think John was at the start of the book?

3. At what age do you think John got pulled out of school upon the death of his father?

4. When Mr Hale told Margaret and Mrs Hale about the Thorntons and the specifics regarding Mr George Thornton's death in Chapter 11, he remarked (about Fanny) "but of course she had to kept", what did he mean by it? Was he talking of the possibility the Thorntons might have had of giving Fanny up for adoption, or as a ward - something of that nature?

Any response would be much appreciated :)
Thanks!

Lois

Hi Lois, welcome to the group and thanks for the link. I'll be interested in checking it out.

I'd have to go hunt and recheck the clues left in the book, but from what I've pieced together, John is in his early thirties. Fanny is a little younger than Margaret (maybe one year), so that puts the gap between John and Fanny at about 12 years. And we know from the book there was a child in between them that died in infancy.

I'm guessing John was about 16 when he had to take on the responsibility of becoming the head of the family.

Gaskell makes it quite clear that John and Fanny are completely different in character and behavior. Although John loves Fanny, it would be hard to establish any kind of deep bond with her. Fanny doesn't do 'deep.' John must have wanted the best for her. He spent a good deal for her wedding when his business was struggling.

I'm not sure if the 'kept' term was meant to convey anything beyond the fact that she would need to be housed and fed. I think the term 'kept' implied a dependent. A kept woman is one who doesn't have to work, right?

Thanks for the welcome Trudy and the quick reply too! :)

EG was so extremely vague with the ages that it has become quite a mysterious obsession to me! LOL.
Here's what I've come up and wanted to know if they sound reasonable to the readers here. Bear with me for a moment.

I for one never took Mr Hale's comment of "about thirty" to mean that John was actually past the age of 30 years at the start. I suspect the years of hardships might have aged him a bit, making him look older than he really were. ;)

So I thought he might be 28-30 years old at the start.

Fanny's comment in the show about Margaret being "much older" than her did make me smirk at her flair for exaggeration. Even so, I pegged her to be around 16 years while Margaret was 19 years old during that first spring in Milton.

And so Fanny most likely was an infant when her father died. Definitely under 3 years old because otherwise she'd be the same age as Margaret!

Since John was "pulled out of school" and schooling for young boys during those times started at about 10 years of age and finished by 15 years of age (after which they sought employment or further education depending on their financial status), I thought he might have been 12-14 years old when his father died.

So the age gap between Fanny and John was about 12 years as well.

I do think John loved Fanny as well. And considering that he practically raised her along with his mother from an early age, makes me thing he loved her very much even though he doesn't show her much affection in the novel. I think he was more a father-figure to her than a brother. I struggle to think that there might be any sort of bitterness between the two of them.

I don't know why, but when Mr Hale mentioned "but of course she had to be kept", I naturally thought of the possibilities that perhaps Mrs Thornton faced being a widow with next to nothing and two children under her wing. The possibilities of Fanny being given away or sent away even either as a ward or to a charitable institution might have perhaps crossed her mind. So rather than meaning the child had to be kept in food and board (which would have been too obvious that it makes me question why it was stated so - I'm thinking "duh", unless...), could he have meant perhaps since no one came forward offered their charity even towards the child, she had to be kept/retained?

Either way, food and board and not being given/sent away implied that Fanny was a dependent because she was younger than 5 years of age; otherwise, she too would have been able to work and earn an income since girls as young as 5 years were sent out to earn a living.

See, I struggle to imagine how life was life for the Thorntons during their years of hardship. I imagine their life to have been very difficult, but Mrs T might have held fast to her morals and class. And so, would they have relied on charity even if it was offered to them? Most likely not. But that doesn't preclude the Hales from thinking like that since the lives of Mrs Hale and Margaret relied on the kindness of Sir Beresford and Mrs Shaw respectively.


Those are my theories! Now, only if EG could have been more specific. ;)

It makes it more interesting to have to sleuth everything out with Gaskell's clues! lol.

All we know for sure is that Margaret was three years old when John's father died. I can't find any text to suggest Fanny was younger than Margaret. Is there something in the book?

I always thought Fanny was probably three as well, maybe only two, when George Thornton committed suicide. Too young to remember anything of those first really hard years.

Fanny marries by the end of the book, when Margaret is 20. If 18 is an age Mrs Shaw can brag about marrying off Edith at, maybe Fanny is either 18 or 19 when she marries. (Margaret is positively heading toward spinsterhood at the ripe old age of 21 when she presumably marries!)

I guess I always assumed Fanny was maybe only a year younger since Gaskell uses Fanny, Edith, and Bessy as contrasts to Margaret. Four young ladies all of about similar age.

Poor Thornton has been working his tail off since he's been 14 or so, supporting two dependents and working his way to CEO over the biggest mill in Milton! He certainly deserves a tender, intelligent, and compassionate companion to soften life's load.

I thought I was the only one who wondered about their ages

Fanny might be trying to distance herself from being an "old maid" like Margaret by saying "She's much older than me." Either that or Margaret has become careworn and looks older than she is. Certainly she's more emotionally mature than Fanny. I don't know what age constituted spinsterhood in this period - 25?

QNPoohBear wrote: "I don't know what age constituted spinsterhood in this period - 25?
I think if a girl wasn't married by 24/25, she was a spinster. But yes, PoohBear, I do think Fanny was exaggerating to distance herself. Besides, I think the general feeling of the time was if you weren't married by 21 years old, there was something wrong with either you or your family.


LOL. Suzan, it's been driving me and another poster over on the IMDb N&S board absolutely bonkers. I say one thing and she says another. And since we are so small a group there, I came here to see what everyone else thought. :)


All we know for sure is that Margaret was three years old when John's father died. I can't find any text to suggest Fanny was younger than Margaret. Is there something in the book?
Not that I recall Trudy. All I know is that Margaret was 18 years old when she left London and 19 years old when she met Bessy.

I always thought Fanny was probably three as well, maybe only two, when George Thornton committed suicide. Too young to remember anything of those first really hard years.
Fanny being the same age as Margaret is still possible but I still peg her to be somewhere between 0-2 years old. That way Fanny is still younger (i.e immature) to Margaret (if that is what EG was indeed trying to portray).

Fanny marries by the end of the book, when Margaret is 20. If 18 is an age Mrs Shaw can brag about marrying off Edith at, maybe Fanny is either 18 or 19 when she marries. (Margaret is positively heading toward spinsterhood at the ripe old age of 21 when she presumably marries!)
LOL. Yes, Trudy; poor "old" Margaret! LOL. But I'm sure it was no joke for the girls of that time.

I think most girls did try to marry by 18 years of age. Anywhere from 16-20 years seems to be the ideal age to marry at that time.

So had Margaret accepted Henry's proposal, she too would have been married by the time she turned 19 years old. (Most girls accepted their first proposal didn't they; because who knows when the next one might come by! Eeek!)

Isn't Margaret almost 22 though, by the end of the novel? 21 1/2 I think, from what I remember. So Fanny if she was 3 years younger than Margaret would be around 18 years old by the time she married Watson.

;)

My reasoning: When John tells his history, he begins with "sixteen years ago." So, if a nineteen year old Margaret is listening to the story, she was three years old sixteen years ago.
That fall, her mother dies. Next spring, her father dies. Counting her age by passing springs, she's 20 when she leaves Milton.
She doesn't see John again until the summer after her first summer back at Harley Street. So, by the closing pages she's either 21 or just turned 22.

Following Gaskell's time sequence is agonizing. She made a few blunders in the middle an editor should have caught.

Trudy wrote: "My reasoning: When John tells his history, he begins with "sixteen years ago." So, if a nineteen year old Margaret is listening to the story, she was three years old sixteen years ago.
That fall, h..."

I too used the same line of reasoning Trudy and that's why I agree that Margaret was around 22 years old by the end of the book; closer to 21 1/2 years old I think is a more reasonable guess.

Yes EG made quite a few blunders in her timelines; which makes me wonder why despite going into book form she didn't correct them when she had the chance. Seems like an missed opportunity there.

Back to Fanny though...

As a girl of her times, she did abide by the popular Victorian customs and traditions around well-to-do families. Much like Edith in London. So yes, Fanny was a foil for Margaret. But I think it is easier for me to comprehend if she were a bit younger than Margaret that way solidifying her immaturity compared to Margaret (who at least until the move to Milton, did not face much hardship in her life either).

In the book, Fanny is closely acquainted to the Watsons having stayed with them when a servant girl caught a contagious disease. So perhaps she too did love the man in some way, again, like Edith. I think when the series brushed over this tidbit it made her look like an opportunist to some.

So, I think Fanny is a little misunderstood as a character; especially when it came to the relationship she had with John both in the book and the series.

When John said something to the effect of "thank God Fanny has been taken care off" at the end of book, it was relief he was expressing, true, but not because he was washing his hands clean off his (loathsome) responsibilities towards her now that Watson was delegated that task.

I think that in everything he did for Fanny, he did it because he didn't want her lacking in anything. And it was rooted in love. Everything was done for her in the proper way and at the proper time, a good thing too considering how much worse their financial situation had gotten since then.

And so it was not just about his responsibilities in providing for her but he did care (and love her) to do the best for her according to their capabilities so that she wasn't short-changed.

She was always given the best and brought up the way a Victorian girl ought to be in terms of tutors and training etc. She was not one wanting in any regard. Except is maturity. But she was much loved too, wasn't she?

I think, despite the fact that John is never teasing her or pushing her buttons as your typical older brother turned father-figure would (and I think the series missed an opportunity there too given how Fanny was the comic-relief anyway), he still loved her. A even though a few might find their relationship wanting, I think most don't, right.

That's mainly what I came to ask about. The relationship between Fanny and John. I know the age discussion helps in that though.

In my eyes, I see Fanny as the Edith of the North.
Both are superficial and frivolous but very much loved and well-taken care of by their families. Even older brother John didn't just see her as a responsibility but cared for her despite the rather meager lines devoted to their relationship in the novel. At least, I like to think so :)

I agree that John cares for her, but I don't think there's a whole lot of interchange and warmth between them because they have completely different values and natures.

John might have been teasing her somwhat when he suggested she knew all about being ill. Fanny didn't find the refrerence funny, though, and protested his charge. And then immediately thereafter claimed a headache. (Lol!)

I can't envision a truly warm exchange between them because Gaskell gives us no clues that Fanny has the capacity to value anything beyond society and self.

Hannah doesn't have a warm relationship with her daughter either. Fanny is loved and cared for, but there can't be a deep bond of affection between her and her brother or mother unless/until there's a mutual adoration going on. Hannah is secretly mortified by her daughter. John may not be mortified, but there's little depth that can be built between he and his sister as long as Fanny takes her brother for granted.

I don't believe Gaskell meant us to find anything to admire in Fanny. She's not necessarily so bad she's just, perhaps, a very typical product of her specific environment. Gaskell is showing the shallowness of youth and wealthy society.

Edith was adored by her mother. But you can't say the same about Fanny. I'd have to say Fanny was loved and spoiled, but in a very different way than Edith was. Aunt Shaw saw no wrong with her daughter. Hannah knew her daughter's glaring lack of character.

I'm glad you're championing Fanny to some degree. She's a pretty minor character that isn't always given too much thought. I know of one particular fan fiction story that develops her character favorably.

I can't find anything to admire about her in Gaskell's book. Maybe she hasn't had time to grow up yet. She's been too sheltered.

I think Fanny is 16-18. She's done with school/doesn't have a governess anymore and she's just about marriageable age but not "on the shelf" yet. I like that idea "Edith of the North." It's very true but I think Fanny is a little more snide than Edith. Edith is "a lovable widgeon." She's an airhead but a sweet and generous one. She means well. I think Fanny is more snide and cutting than Edith.

Ah! I understand what you mean Trudy, PoohBear.

I just can't imagine a mother and a brother not being warm to their own daughter and sister. They had no one but each other during their period of loss. And Fanny being such a young thing when her father died, I thought, would have only brought them together stronger. She was after all the outward symbol of how far they had come.

But perhaps the years and their "love" spoilt her beyond her sense and their control.

I think these Northerners do not care to show their feelings of love and affection as much as the Southerners like Edith and Mrs Shaw do. Hence the disparity between Fanny of the North and Edith of the South in terms of familial affection.

Another difference is that while Edith was almost always indulged during her moments of attention-seeking behaviour, Fanny was not. Perhaps that would make her more brash and therefore more obnoxious than the other.

:)

I apologize for my delay, work keeps me from doing many things that I love. However, I did want to make a comment to several of the things mentioned in this discussion.

First, I wish to tell Lois, that I completely agree with many of the deductions of ages that she has worked out. I've been a fan of N&S for going on 10 years now (holy cow where has the time gone?). I've participated in MANY discussions over that time. Read the book more times than I can count (I learn some new insight each time) and the movie.. well I will adore it for the rest of my life.

However, I can tell you that I've been GREATLY out numbered in my views on Thornton's age especially. Because of the comment that has been quoted several times, people have assumed the reference to Thornton's age by Mr. Hale automatically should make us assume that he was 31, 32 or even 33. I always disagreed with that. It is possible that he could have been that old but it is also possible that he could have been as young at 27,28 or 29, for many of the reasons that you (Lois) brought forward. Thornton carried a heavy burden since he was 16 and that burden and what he had accomplished would have greatly effected people's perception of his age. So, to sum this all up, I wish to Thank You, Lois, for not leaving me alone in this possibility in Thornton's age.

Secondly, regarding Fanny's age and her relationship with John and her mother. First, I think that Fanny was at least two years younger than Margaret. Though I can't find the quote in the book that was used in the film (where Fanny states Margaret is "so much older)", I do believe that comment was inspired by a reference in the book. (I will find it one of these days). I think that the actress playing Fanny in the film strongly effects viewers perception of Fanny's age (the actress does not look younger than Margaret) and also because of Fanny's marriage at the end of the story. *Regarding her marriage, a young girl was deemed as eligible for marriage at the age of 16. She was considered pushing the "marriageable age" by 22. (though still possible to marry, her likelihood decreased with each year)

Also, Fanny's relationship with John and her mother, is yet another element that I think is too strongly influenced by the film. The book actually subtly displays a different picture. One clear example, (which I apologize I can not find at the moment), is a comment that Gaskell makes in narration regarding Hannah's relationship with both of her children. Gaskell describes Mother and son as being close but not by outward appearance (even stating as I recall that they rarely spoke in depth). In truth, John due to his burden to support his family and then by the very nature of his personality, wasn't one to seek close relationships. It was why his relationship with Mr. Hale, unnerved Hannah and then what makes his attachment to Margaret so profound, breathtaking and beautiful.

Gaskell also makes a subtle statement (which is why so many miss it) that Hannah was very attentive to Fanny. (I will add the quote when I locate it) However, this is my impression, (from the book) of Fanny's relationship with Hannah. Fanny, is in the storyline, much like Edith to show an "opposite" to Margaret. Displaying the differences there. Fanny and Edith were your typical females of this era, Margaret was a rarity. The book also describes the Thornton household as "loving" but structured and rigid. I have no doubts that both John and Hannah loved Fanny. As you state Lois, "...perhaps the years and their "love" spoilt her beyond her sense and their control..." I think this is very much the case. Because they loved her they sought to shield her from the challenges they faced. They protected and coddled her too much, making her frivolous and fairly shallow.

Also, your comment: "...Northerners do not care to show their feelings of love and affection as much as the Southerners like Edith and Mrs Shaw do. Hence the disparity between Fanny of the North and Edith of the South in terms of familial affection..." I think there is some truth to this, though we know that Britain's tend, on the whole, to be less likely to show affection (in comparison to us here in the states). Could this have been even more so in a Northern household? Very possibly, especially in a household like the Thorntons, where mother and son were more introverted by nature.

I will say Lois, I loved reading your thoughts (and those given by other members). I look forward to reading more of your comments and reflections on this amazing story.

*Information gathered via intensive reading and discussions with English Historians I've met.

Most children didn't go to school much after the age of 13 into the 20th century. Do we think Thornton left school earlier or was he attending a secondary school and forced to leave? I don't think he's 30 yet because he seems younger than the other masters and I think 30 would be pretty close to middle age at that time if not older given the pollution in Milton.

According to the BBC "Death rates in Britain as a whole remained obstinately above 20 per thousand until the 1880s and only dropped to 17 by the end of Victoria's reign.

Life expectancy at birth, in the high 30s in 1837, had crept up to 48 by 1901."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/...

The 1841 census lists life expectancy at 40.2 years for men, 42.2 for women. More than 70 per cent of the population were under 35. Out of every 1,000 babies, 150 died before they were one.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/...

This site lists 38 as life expectancy for professional trades in Manchester in 1842. Let's say it's higher for the typical type of Master who isn't as hands on as Thornton.

Wow! No wonder Mr. Hale and Mr. Bell are really old men at 60+!

Thanks for sharing that QnPoohBear. I've read some of this myself.

It's actually quite depressing to consider. I don't like the thought of Thornton only living another 20 years at best.

I sure am glad to read your post LoriBear :) And I'm so happy to know now that I'm not alone in my thinking (I knew I wouldn't be but it sure has taken a while to find someone else who shares my views)! ;D Thank you for saying so! *big hugs* :D

QNPoohBear wrote: "Do we think Thornton left school earlier or was he attending a secondary school and forced to leave?"

I do think he was attending a secondary school from which he was pulled out from when his father died.

From my research, which includes looking up the biographies of people like Robert Owen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_... and Sir John A McDonald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A.... , basic schooling I think was usually done till the age of 10. After that, it depends on what the family's financial status was. If they could afford it, the child would continue schooling till the age of 15. Otherwise, they would have to work.

So John being pulled out "early", I think meant he was somewhere past the age of 10 but under 15 years old. And he had some basic knowledge of Latin seeing as how Mr Hale remarked on his recall, so that perhaps meant that he got in at least two years at the secondary school.

I now try extra hard to pay attention to all the ages and such detail when it comes to anything Victorian just to put things in perspective :)

There is so much information in a show like Downton Abbey too. The character Molesley (40+ years of age) tells Daisy that he only attended school till the age of 13 because his family couldn't afford more than that and he had to set out to work instead.

It was the norm for children to be working once their basic schooling was done. In the later part of the Victorian Era compulsory schooling was required for children upto the ages of 12 if I recall correctly; will post links when I find them. :)

I was equally glad to see your post as well Lois! (thank heavens we are not alone)

It's been 8 years since I found N&S and there have been endless enjoyable discussions that I've participated in. Yet, I believe assumptions have been made with regards to Thornton's age. All from that little statement by Mr. Hale, "about 30".

I've read a lot on this myself but I will be honest, it's been awhile. I am so thankful for you adding the average ages for boys in school to the discussion. In our day and age, a boy of 15 would still have several years of schooling to complete. Yet in Victorian times, this was not the case. Young boys of 15 were either completing their schooling or just completed. Readers have assumed that Thornton was 15-16 when he was taken from school and yet with the information that you've shared, he couldn't have been 16 but could have possibly been 15. If this is the case he would have been pulled from school just before completing. (which is sad)

However, I tend to lean the direction that you have, that when he was pulled he would have been closer to 11-13. Which again would place his age more 27-29 at best.

It sure would have been nice if Gaskell had spelled this out for us, however, once again she was writing to her contemporaries and it wouldn't have even dawned on her that her readers wouldn't automatically understand this.

Downton Abbey's Daisy is literate so she had some schooling but she was unwanted by her parents and sent out to work at a very young age.

In the early 20th century in the U.S. it was still unusual for working class kids to go to school past 8th grade. My Italian born grandmother quit when she was 12 and went to work, her older siblings finished 8th grade but by the time the youngest two kids came along the family had all 3 older kids working plus their parents so the younger ones got to go to college.

I think this is what happened with John and Fanny. He worked to support the family and Fanny was kept in ignorance because she was too young to understand what was going on. By the time she is old enough to come out of the schoolroom, their finances are better and she's been spoiled. She's much like Louisa May Alcott's youngest sister who was shielded from the worst of their grinding poverty because she was so young. Louisa and her sister Anna and occasionally their mother (and almost never their father) worked to earn money to support their family. When Louisa became a rich and famous writer, she used her money to support her family. The youngest sister May was allowed to pursue her dream of becoming an artist.

I agree with your comments QNPoohBear but I'm scratching my head over the first line in the post.

Bit confused as to why you said "Daisy is literate so she had some schooling". Were you correcting something I said? Because, I was talking about Molesley when I mentioned Daisy and was comparing Molesley's situation to John's situation (albeit some 60+ years later) in my post.

But most kids, even the poor, did have some basic education through Sunday school and such in the latter half of the Victorian era. And by the 1870's educational reform enforced compulsory schooling for all kids upto the age of 10 (hence my bad example of Molesley; although I was really pointing out the educational tidbit that popped up in DA and got me thinking about education and kids ages in the 19th century - which led me to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element...).

So yes, by Daisy's time, she would have had the basic schooling one way or another...compulsory school, sunday school, charity school etc etc regardless of how poor she was.

Trudy wrote: "I'm glad you're championing Fanny to some degree. She's a pretty minor character that isn't always given too much thought. I know of one particular fan fiction story that develops her character fav..."



Ooo which one is that. I loved Fanny, thought she was around sixteen, the silliness of her character. The quick judgements, her lack of friends. I thought she was a foil for Edith, both sensible in picking a good provider husband that they could deal with or manage. Where as Margaret wanted love and waited.
For ages and the sixteen years ago comment I thought Fanny was probably one, and John fourteen, most children in those times unless wealthy left school at ten. Also it would be about right for John to be picked as a apprentice in a drappery shop at that age.

I think that the Thornton's were considered quite wealthy until their father "speculated wildly". Mrs. Thornton still has her very expensive wedding linens and the like. So, presumably John was on course to have a gentleman's education before his father's suicide - so maybe he did leave "school" (where he may have been a boarder) earlier than 18 but later than a working/middle class person. So like others I think perhaps he left school at 15/16 years of age.

I wish we knew more backstory about the Thornton's. How on earth did John "raise himself up" to have the Mill ?(he is a tenant not owner of the mill buildings but does own the machinery etc.). We are told that the family moved outside of Milton after the suicide and ruin to a smaller place where they weren't well known and could live more cheaply (sounds a bit like what the Hale's have done) and where John took a job as an assistant at a small draper's. They kept back 3 shillings a week and eventually paid off their father's creditors. But surely, his wage would have been paltry - how on earth on 3 shillings a week did they repay the vast sum their father is purported to have lost? and then how did John manage to set up a mill. We know he has bank loans for machinery but he must have had a big stash to start up to meet the payroll and buy the initial machines before money came in from his orders. Did he run a mill for someone first and impress investors who then supported him? How did he so quickly become someone other men want to hear opinions from?

I'd love to know about Hannah and her life with Thornton senior. I actually think Margaret is very like his mother in her bearing, steadfastness and queenly like appearance.